Park v. Dr. Midas Medical Group CA2/5, B301873

Park worked for Dr. Midas Medical Group from 2014–2018 and filed a putative class action in 2019 asserting wage-and-hour, meal/rest-break, wage-statement, final-wage, and UCL claims.
Defendants later produced an eight-page employment agreement that purportedly contained an arbitration clause; the agreement had a missing page six and several blank pre-printed fields; Park’s signature appears but she says she does not recall signing.
The arbitration provision (Section 11) is broad, covers many statutory and common-law employment claims, invokes the FAA and AAA rules, and expressly bars class arbitration; it excludes disputes arising under Section 7 (restrictive covenants/confidentiality/non-solicitation).
Section 12 contains a prevailing-party attorney-fee provision for any litigation concerning the agreement.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion but did not state reasons in a reporter’s transcript or a statement of decision; the minute order is brief and does not memorialize the court’s rationale.
On appeal, defendants furnished no reporter’s transcript or settled statement of the hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed because the appellants failed to carry their burden to show reversible error in the absence of an adequate appellate record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable or unconscionable	Park argued the arbitration clause is unconscionable and the agreement may be invalid	Defendants argued the agreement and arbitration clause are valid and enforceable	Affirmed denial of motion to compel but not on merits; appellate court declined to reach enforceability because record insufficient to show error
Whether appellants can obtain reversal without a reporter’s transcript or settled statement	Park relied on trial-court denial and argued appellants bear burden to show error on appeal	Defendants argued the denial was erroneous and sought appellate review of unconscionability and other defenses	Court held appellants failed to provide the necessary record; judgment presumed correct and error not affirmatively shown, so affirmance required

Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (establishes that trial-court orders are presumed correct on appeal)
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc., 198 Cal.App.4th 181 (2011) (appellate burden to affirmatively show prejudicial error)
Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc., 8 Cal.App.5th 1223 (2017) (record of hearing is indispensable when trial-court written ruling is succinct)
Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., 232 Cal.App.4th 836 (2014) (appellate review of arbitration rulings requires adequate record)
Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery, 5 Cal.App.5th 476 (2016) (discusses standard of review when factual record is lacking)
People v. Flinner, 10 Cal.5th 686 (2020) (addresses standards of appellate review and burdens of showing error)